|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > October 2004 > One more time...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Mitch_A 2004-10-12, 12:52 am |
| I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so
I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one
thing.
Then the other guy says something else. Whom to believe.
Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid
contract in Yugoslavia - good...Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in
Iraq - bad...Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...Bush spends
87 billion in Iraq - bad...Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia -
good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Clinton bombs Christian
Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...Bush liberates 25
million from a genocidal dictator - bad...Clinton bombs Chinese embassy -
good...Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...Clinton commits felonies while in
office - good...Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...Clinton
says mass graves in Serbia - good...Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...No
mass graves found in Serbia - good...No WMD found Iraq - bad...Stock market
crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy slows under Bush -
bad...Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...World Trade
Centers fall under Bush - bad...Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...Bush
says Saddam has nukes - bad...Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq -
good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Terrorist training in
Afghanistan under Clinton - good...Bush destroys training camps in
Afghanistan - bad...Milosevic not yet convicted - good...Saddam turned over
for trial - bad...
Ah, it's so confusing!
| |
| Don Burnette 2004-10-12, 12:52 am |
| Mitch_A wrote:
quote:
> I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my
> head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one
> guy saying one thing.
> Then the other guy says something else. Whom to believe.
>
> Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Yugoslavia - good...Bush awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Iraq - bad...Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia -
> good...Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...Clinton imposes regime
> change in Serbia - good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq -
> bad...Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
> terrorists - good...Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal
> dictator - bad...Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...Bush bombs
> terrorist camps - bad...Clinton commits felonies while in office -
> good...Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...Clinton
> says mass graves in Serbia - good...Entire world says WMD in Iraq -
> bad...No mass graves found in Serbia - good...No WMD found Iraq -
> bad...Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy
> slows under Bush - bad...Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden
> - good...World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...Clinton says
> Saddam has nukes - good...Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...Clinton
> calls for regime change in Iraq - good...Bush imposes regime change
> in Iraq - bad...Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton -
> good...Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...Milosevic
> not yet convicted - good...Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
> Ah, it's so confusing!
No kidding!!
The thought of Kerry/Edwards running things to me, is scary as hell. I just
do not see Kerry as being a great leader, someone that will take charge and
get things done.
And, could you even imagine if something happened to him and Edward ran the
show? Now that is very scary!!
I just do not trust those slick talkers - 2 lawyers, running our country -
sheese...
The only thing I am dissappointed in Bush in, is his public speaking of
late.
Remember his address to congress and the nation a few days after the attack
of 9/11? That speech will go down in history as one of the greatest
presidential speeches in modern day history.
I want to hear that again, and he seems to be having trouble conveying
that. Seems like he is at his best when pushed into a corner, then look out!
To me, there is no doubt, and no comparison. IF it is not Bush/Cheney, we
are in for some very rough times ahead.
Kerry : I will raise taxes on higher income people to pay for this war and
reduce national debt.
I will give a tax cut to the middle income people.
I disagree with Bush's tax cuts.
Which is it Mr flip flop??
Kerry: I actually voted for the 82 billion , before I voted against it.
Duh???????
Kerry: I will have a summit with all our allies, to jointly come up with a
way to win this war in Iraq.
Bush has put us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the
wrong time.
I voted for the war, Saddam was an imminent threat to the United
States of America. ( based on exact same intellegince as Bush looked at)
Bush made a critical error, in sending our troops into Iraq.
Double duhh??????
Kerry: I will speed up the training of Iraq personell.
Who said it is slow?
Kerry: I will go after and kill Osama
How? What will you do differently? Osama was the mastermind
behind 9/11, but things have changed. Many more fish to fry now.
Kerry has resorted to flaming Bush in hopes of getting into office, lying
and using nothing but derogatory words, rather than stating how exactly he
is going to do what he is proposing. Very scary.
Bush needs to ignore the mudslinging, and do what he does best - show his
passion for his country, and resolve in taking care of the terrorist threat
BEFORE another 9/11 happens.
IF the United States does NOT take care of this , at the root of the
problem, on their own soil - we will face devastating destruction in the
future, at the hands of these same terrorists, using wmd's. 9/11 will look
like a firecracker in comparison.
And I just cannot see, Kerry being the man, to lead this great nation and
get this done.
God help this country if he should get into office.
--
Don Burnette
| |
| James Calivar 2004-10-12, 12:52 am |
| LOL
"Mitch_A" <naman-nospam@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:dYyad.28073$QJ3.12776@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so
> I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one
> thing.
> Then the other guy says something else. Whom to believe.
>
> Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Yugoslavia - good...Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in
> Iraq - bad...Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...Bush
spends
quote:
> 87 billion in Iraq - bad...Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia -
> good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Clinton bombs Christian
> Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...Bush liberates 25
> million from a genocidal dictator - bad...Clinton bombs Chinese embassy -
> good...Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...Clinton commits felonies while
in
quote:
> office - good...Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...Clinton
> says mass graves in Serbia - good...Entire world says WMD in Iraq -
bad...No
quote:
> mass graves found in Serbia - good...No WMD found Iraq - bad...Stock
market
quote:
> crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy slows under Bush -
> bad...Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...World Trade
> Centers fall under Bush - bad...Clinton says Saddam has nukes -
good...Bush
quote:
> says Saddam has nukes - bad...Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq -
> good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Terrorist training in
> Afghanistan under Clinton - good...Bush destroys training camps in
> Afghanistan - bad...Milosevic not yet convicted - good...Saddam turned
over
quote:
> for trial - bad...
>
> Ah, it's so confusing!
>
>
>
| |
| Don Burnette 2004-10-15, 5:56 pm |
| Mitch_A wrote:
quote:
> I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my
> head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one
> guy saying one thing.
> Then the other guy says something else. Whom to believe.
>
> Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Yugoslavia - good...Bush awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Iraq - bad...Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia -
> good...Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...Clinton imposes regime
> change in Serbia - good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq -
> bad...Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
> terrorists - good...Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal
> dictator - bad...Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...Bush bombs
> terrorist camps - bad...Clinton commits felonies while in office -
> good...Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...Clinton
> says mass graves in Serbia - good...Entire world says WMD in Iraq -
> bad...No mass graves found in Serbia - good...No WMD found Iraq -
> bad...Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy
> slows under Bush - bad...Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden
> - good...World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...Clinton says
> Saddam has nukes - good...Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...Clinton
> calls for regime change in Iraq - good...Bush imposes regime change
> in Iraq - bad...Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton -
> good...Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...Milosevic
> not yet convicted - good...Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
> Ah, it's so confusing!
No kidding!!
The thought of Kerry/Edwards running things to me, is scary as hell. I just
do not see Kerry as being a great leader, someone that will take charge and
get things done.
And, could you even imagine if something happened to him and Edward ran the
show? Now that is very scary!!
I just do not trust those slick talkers - 2 lawyers, running our country -
sheese...
The only thing I am dissappointed in Bush in, is his public speaking of
late.
Remember his address to congress and the nation a few days after the attack
of 9/11? That speech will go down in history as one of the greatest
presidential speeches in modern day history.
I want to hear that again, and he seems to be having trouble conveying
that. Seems like he is at his best when pushed into a corner, then look out!
To me, there is no doubt, and no comparison. IF it is not Bush/Cheney, we
are in for some very rough times ahead.
Kerry : I will raise taxes on higher income people to pay for this war and
reduce national debt.
I will give a tax cut to the middle income people.
I disagree with Bush's tax cuts.
Which is it Mr flip flop??
Kerry: I actually voted for the 82 billion , before I voted against it.
Duh???????
Kerry: I will have a summit with all our allies, to jointly come up with a
way to win this war in Iraq.
Bush has put us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the
wrong time.
I voted for the war, Saddam was an imminent threat to the United
States of America. ( based on exact same intellegince as Bush looked at)
Bush made a critical error, in sending our troops into Iraq.
Double duhh??????
Kerry: I will speed up the training of Iraq personell.
Who said it is slow?
Kerry: I will go after and kill Osama
How? What will you do differently? Osama was the mastermind
behind 9/11, but things have changed. Many more fish to fry now.
Kerry has resorted to flaming Bush in hopes of getting into office, lying
and using nothing but derogatory words, rather than stating how exactly he
is going to do what he is proposing. Very scary.
Bush needs to ignore the mudslinging, and do what he does best - show his
passion for his country, and resolve in taking care of the terrorist threat
BEFORE another 9/11 happens.
IF the United States does NOT take care of this , at the root of the
problem, on their own soil - we will face devastating destruction in the
future, at the hands of these same terrorists, using wmd's. 9/11 will look
like a firecracker in comparison.
And I just cannot see, Kerry being the man, to lead this great nation and
get this done.
God help this country if he should get into office.
--
Don Burnette
| |
| James Calivar 2004-10-15, 5:56 pm |
| LOL
"Mitch_A" <naman-nospam@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:dYyad.28073$QJ3.12776@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so
> I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one
> thing.
> Then the other guy says something else. Whom to believe.
>
> Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid
> contract in Yugoslavia - good...Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in
> Iraq - bad...Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...Bush
spends
quote:
> 87 billion in Iraq - bad...Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia -
> good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Clinton bombs Christian
> Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...Bush liberates 25
> million from a genocidal dictator - bad...Clinton bombs Chinese embassy -
> good...Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...Clinton commits felonies while
in
quote:
> office - good...Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...Clinton
> says mass graves in Serbia - good...Entire world says WMD in Iraq -
bad...No
quote:
> mass graves found in Serbia - good...No WMD found Iraq - bad...Stock
market
quote:
> crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...Economy slows under Bush -
> bad...Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...World Trade
> Centers fall under Bush - bad...Clinton says Saddam has nukes -
good...Bush
quote:
> says Saddam has nukes - bad...Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq -
> good...Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...Terrorist training in
> Afghanistan under Clinton - good...Bush destroys training camps in
> Afghanistan - bad...Milosevic not yet convicted - good...Saddam turned
over
quote:
> for trial - bad...
>
> Ah, it's so confusing!
>
>
>
| |
| Pattywak 2004-10-27, 5:47 pm |
| Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
Why are we in Iraq?
And don't answer with it had to be sooner than later. That is flawed
ideology.
And don't answer with "to keep America safe". There was never any
threat from a country the size of Oregon. Even if they had WMDs, they
would still be no threat to us because of the range involved.
And don't answer with "He was a terrible dictator who slaughtered his
own people ruthlessly". There were plenty of others that were worse
and more iminent threats.
"Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message news:<l_ednYhcRa0yXffcRVn-iA@giganews.com>...
quote:
> Mitch_A wrote:
>
> No kidding!!
>
> The thought of Kerry/Edwards running things to me, is scary as hell. I just
> do not see Kerry as being a great leader, someone that will take charge and
> get things done.
> And, could you even imagine if something happened to him and Edward ran the
> show? Now that is very scary!!
> I just do not trust those slick talkers - 2 lawyers, running our country -
> sheese...
>
> The only thing I am dissappointed in Bush in, is his public speaking of
> late.
> Remember his address to congress and the nation a few days after the attack
> of 9/11? That speech will go down in history as one of the greatest
> presidential speeches in modern day history.
> I want to hear that again, and he seems to be having trouble conveying
> that. Seems like he is at his best when pushed into a corner, then look out!
>
> To me, there is no doubt, and no comparison. IF it is not Bush/Cheney, we
> are in for some very rough times ahead.
>
> Kerry : I will raise taxes on higher income people to pay for this war and
> reduce national debt.
> I will give a tax cut to the middle income people.
> I disagree with Bush's tax cuts.
> Which is it Mr flip flop??
>
> Kerry: I actually voted for the 82 billion , before I voted against it.
> Duh???????
>
> Kerry: I will have a summit with all our allies, to jointly come up with a
> way to win this war in Iraq.
> Bush has put us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the
> wrong time.
> I voted for the war, Saddam was an imminent threat to the United
> States of America. ( based on exact same intellegince as Bush looked at)
> Bush made a critical error, in sending our troops into Iraq.
> Double duhh??????
>
> Kerry: I will speed up the training of Iraq personell.
> Who said it is slow?
>
> Kerry: I will go after and kill Osama
> How? What will you do differently? Osama was the mastermind
> behind 9/11, but things have changed. Many more fish to fry now.
>
>
> Kerry has resorted to flaming Bush in hopes of getting into office, lying
> and using nothing but derogatory words, rather than stating how exactly he
> is going to do what he is proposing. Very scary.
>
> Bush needs to ignore the mudslinging, and do what he does best - show his
> passion for his country, and resolve in taking care of the terrorist threat
> BEFORE another 9/11 happens.
> IF the United States does NOT take care of this , at the root of the
> problem, on their own soil - we will face devastating destruction in the
> future, at the hands of these same terrorists, using wmd's. 9/11 will look
> like a firecracker in comparison.
>
> And I just cannot see, Kerry being the man, to lead this great nation and
> get this done.
> God help this country if he should get into office.
| |
| Mitch_A 2004-10-27, 5:47 pm |
| So YOU decide that the most COMMON SENSE argument isnt valid... We had
already waited much too long. All your appeasing did was give strength to
OUR enemies. The UN's Oil for Food scam proves without DOUBT that Saddam
was undermining the Sanctions and soon would have been free to continue his
development of WMD. A few years from now when Saddam released his NBC
weapons on YOUR hometown I wonder how you would've cried that GW didnt
protect us.
Sad, sad little liberal appeaser...
Mitch
"Pattywak" <one2345@eml.cc> wrote in message
news:bf78d922.0410270558.eaebbac@posting.google.com...
quote:
> Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
> Why are we in Iraq?
> And don't answer with it had to be sooner than later. That is flawed
> ideology.
> And don't answer with "to keep America safe". There was never any
> threat from a country the size of Oregon. Even if they had WMDs, they
> would still be no threat to us because of the range involved.
> And don't answer with "He was a terrible dictator who slaughtered his
> own people ruthlessly". There were plenty of others that were worse
> and more iminent threats.
| |
| PAPADOC 2004-10-27, 5:47 pm |
| One of best answers so far is this.
quote:
>Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
>Why are we in Iraq? And don't answer with it had to be sooner than later. That is flawed
>ideology.And don't answer with "to keep America safe". There was never any
>threat from a country the size of Oregon. Even if they had WMDs, they
>would still be no threat to us because of the range involved.
>And don't answer with "He was a terrible dictator who slaughtered his
>own people ruthlessly". There were plenty of others that were worse
>and more iminent threats.
On September 11, 2001, we were forced to view the world in a new
light. Most of us realized two things. First, we realized that Islamic
fanatics were now willing to die in an organized effort to exact their
punishment on the United States of America and that America could
never win the "hearts and minds" of these Islamofacists without
changing the culture that created them. Second, we realized that there
were only two ways to change the culture that created the hate.
We could relent to the Islamofacists' demands and seek their approval
for all future foreign policies.
We could fundamentally alter the landscape of hate by eliminating the
terrorists AND replace the regimes that continue to harbor, fund and
assist the terrorists.
We could have pulled a "Clinton" and attempted to merely eliminate the
terrorists responsible for 9/11. That strategy in dealing with
terrorists (employed by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton in
previous terrorist strikes) had the fatal weakness of leaving the
culture that created them, the regimes that harbored them, and the
leaders who funded them alive to fight another day. Most Americans now
understand that the next terrorist strike could be utterly devastating
to the United States.
So, President Bush acted nearly immediately. Within days of the
attack, the president put the world on notice that the United States
was no longer going to look the other way while regimes continued to
fund, harbor and assist terrorist organizations. In the aftermath of
this ultimatum, a significant amount of terrorist funds have been
frozen worldwide, operatives have been arrested in countries which
never before had made concerted efforts and many terrorists have been
forced into hiding.
And, within 26 days of 9/11, the Bush administration moved a massive
number of troops into position, pulled over 40 nations into a
coalition, negotiated extraordinary concessions from Pakistani
President Pervez Musharef, including flyover and basing rights,
planned humanitarian efforts to avoid human catastrophe and commenced
the air war to remove al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan. All
within 26 days of 9/11.
BACKGROUND ON IRAQ, WMD AND THE U.N.
A little background is necessary to understand the decision to topple
Saddam. Immediately after the first Gulf War, the United Nations
imposed heavy sanctions against Saddam's regime. These sanctions were
devastating and, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam was on the
verge of losing power. Iraqis were on the cusp of revolt against the
dictator responsible for their misery.
But, in 1996, Europe came to the rescue by offering the vaunted "Oil
for Food" program. Bill Clinton succumbed to enormous European
pressure and, against everyone's better judgment, agreed to the
program. This gave Saddam new life, allowing him to provide for his
citizens and illegally siphon off billions to rebuild his regime and
his grip on Iraq.
All the while, Saddam thumbed his nose at more than a dozen years of
U.N. Security Council resolutions, he bugged the phones and rooms of
weapons inspectors, he forbade weapons inspectors to privately
interview scientists, he had armed "minders" escort the inspectors
24/7 and he blocked the U.N. from entering dozens of sites they wished
to inspect. He had also kicked the inspectors out multiple times
before finally in 1998, after the inspectors located Saddam's stash of
deadly VX, the U.N. was kicked out for good. And, from 1998 to 2002,
the U.N. inspectors were never allowed to return.
So, the last thing we knew, the inspectors had found the deadliest
chemical to date, VX, and had not been able to destroy the stockpile
before being escorted out of the country. Meanwhile, Saddam was busy
bribing France, Russia and China (each of which are able to single
handedly veto any Security Council resolution) to keep the U.N out and
fight for the end of all sanctions against his regime.
By September of 2001, all attempts to renegotiate U.N. re-entry had
failed and there was a major push by, you guessed it, France, Russia
and China to lift ALL sanctions against the non-compliant Saddam. The
Duelfer report stated that, if sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would
have been in a position to restart his WMD programs and certainly
would have done so.
THE DECISION TO TOPPLE SADDAM
A lot has been made that the ONLY reason Bush gave for his invasion of
Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. Although this was a big part of
the reason, it most certainly was not the only reason. There are two
factors you need to understand in order to fully appreciate Bush's
rationale.
First, whether you agree with it or not, President Bush set out a
policy to topple the Taliban, work with countries willing to help on
the war on terror, freeze terrorists' assets and replace regimes that
continue to support terrorism. In his stirring State of the Union
speech, he identified the top culprits, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Secondly, you might find it interesting to reread Bush's speech in
Cincinnati which outlined the Iraqi threat. This was THE speech
justifying the invasion of Iraq. Many on the left would have you
believe that the only justification President Bush gave was WMD.
That's why it is so important that you reread the transcript. This
speech is so long that I will not excerpt it in earnest here, but here
is the link to the speech. You would be well served to reread it.
WMD was indeed a large part of the speech, but you have to remember
that the last time inspectors were allowed in Iraq, they had just
located deadly VX and had not had the opportunity to destroy the
stockpiles. Additionally, the CIA, Britain, Russia and Jordan all said
that intelligence confirmed that Saddam still had WMD stockpiles and
the programs to create more. The intelligence was overwhelming.
But when you reread the Cincinnati speech, you will see that
possession of WMD was not the only reason Bush gave for invasion of
Iraq.
Saddam used chemical weapons against his own citizens and in his war
against Iran.
Saddam launched unprovoked wars against both Iran and Kuwait in a
diabolical effort to dominate the Middle East.
Saddam possessed ballistic missiles which were banned by the U.N. and
which we subsequently DID find.
Saddam was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Although the president does
not name him by name, he clearly states that "Some al Qaeda leaders
who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al
Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and
who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological
attacks." This could only be a reference to Zarqawi.
Saddam harbored world-renowned terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.
Saddam's regime gleefully celebrated the 9/11 attacks on our country.
Saddam was scamming the U.N. mandated Oil for Food program and
side-stepping sanctions.
In 2002 alone, the Iraqi military had fired on American and British
pilots enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone over 750 times.
"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives
and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a
method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to
watch their own children being tortured."
Saddam continued to fund terrorists organizations and even rewarded
the families of Palestinian homicide bombers by sending each family
$25,000 for their son or daughter's act of terrorism.
In order to fully appreciate the Iraq rationale, you have to remember
that Bush, after 9/11, had put the world on notice that the United
States was no longer going to look the other way while regimes
continued to fund, harbor and assist terrorists and their
organizations. Saddam continued to do all three. He was a loose cannon
ready to explode as soon as France, Russia and China could manage to
get U.N. sanctions dropped.
What President Bush understands, that neither Senator Kerry nor the
loony left seems to, is the same thing President Kennedy understood in
October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world
community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive
threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live
in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a
sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum
peril."
SO WHY NOT IRAN OR NORTH KOREA?
Unlike Saddam Hussein and Iraq,
Neither Iran nor North Korea had a 12 year track record of ignoring
and defying U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Neither Iran nor North Korea had, in recent history, invaded their
neighbors for regional domination.
Neither Iran nor North Korea had a history of utilizing chemical
weapons.
Leaders of Iran and North Korea have a vital interest in
self-preservation (Saddam wants to become an historical icon).
The world is currently involved in negotiations with both Iran and
North Korea.
Invading Iran with madman Saddam next door would have been entirely
too unpredictable.
Invading Iran, visually on a world map, would have made it look like
America was on the march right across the Middle East. From
Afghanistan to Iran... Where next, Iraq? It would have appeared to be
a crusade.
PART II - THE INVASION
| |
|
|
|
|
"Pattywak" <one2345@eml.cc> wrote in message
news:bf78d922.0410270558.eaebbac@posting.google.com...
quote:
> Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
> Why are we in Iraq?
Very simple really..........
It put us on the ground in a place/region where we have never had this
type of oppertunity before. We can now walk into Syria, and Iran
(literally !) without asking another countries premission. We now have an
area in the ME where we can base out of, and work out of in at
least the near future. It also does indeed keep the US itself safer due
to the fact that many many terrorists now (and have been) are heading
there rather than trying to strike US assets elsewhere.
The USA historically has tried to fight it's battles elsewhere and not in
country...
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
| |
| Mitch_A 2004-10-31, 6:48 am |
| So YOU decide that the most COMMON SENSE argument isnt valid... We had
already waited much too long. All your appeasing did was give strength to
OUR enemies. The UN's Oil for Food scam proves without DOUBT that Saddam
was undermining the Sanctions and soon would have been free to continue his
development of WMD. A few years from now when Saddam released his NBC
weapons on YOUR hometown I wonder how you would've cried that GW didnt
protect us.
Sad, sad little liberal appeaser...
Mitch
"Pattywak" <one2345@eml.cc> wrote in message
news:bf78d922.0410270558.eaebbac@posting.google.com...
quote:
> Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
> Why are we in Iraq?
> And don't answer with it had to be sooner than later. That is flawed
> ideology.
> And don't answer with "to keep America safe". There was never any
> threat from a country the size of Oregon. Even if they had WMDs, they
> would still be no threat to us because of the range involved.
> And don't answer with "He was a terrible dictator who slaughtered his
> own people ruthlessly". There were plenty of others that were worse
> and more iminent threats.
| |
| PAPADOC 2004-10-31, 6:48 am |
| One of best answers so far is this.
quote:
>Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
>Why are we in Iraq? And don't answer with it had to be sooner than later. That is flawed
>ideology.And don't answer with "to keep America safe". There was never any
>threat from a country the size of Oregon. Even if they had WMDs, they
>would still be no threat to us because of the range involved.
>And don't answer with "He was a terrible dictator who slaughtered his
>own people ruthlessly". There were plenty of others that were worse
>and more iminent threats.
On September 11, 2001, we were forced to view the world in a new
light. Most of us realized two things. First, we realized that Islamic
fanatics were now willing to die in an organized effort to exact their
punishment on the United States of America and that America could
never win the "hearts and minds" of these Islamofacists without
changing the culture that created them. Second, we realized that there
were only two ways to change the culture that created the hate.
We could relent to the Islamofacists' demands and seek their approval
for all future foreign policies.
We could fundamentally alter the landscape of hate by eliminating the
terrorists AND replace the regimes that continue to harbor, fund and
assist the terrorists.
We could have pulled a "Clinton" and attempted to merely eliminate the
terrorists responsible for 9/11. That strategy in dealing with
terrorists (employed by Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton in
previous terrorist strikes) had the fatal weakness of leaving the
culture that created them, the regimes that harbored them, and the
leaders who funded them alive to fight another day. Most Americans now
understand that the next terrorist strike could be utterly devastating
to the United States.
So, President Bush acted nearly immediately. Within days of the
attack, the president put the world on notice that the United States
was no longer going to look the other way while regimes continued to
fund, harbor and assist terrorist organizations. In the aftermath of
this ultimatum, a significant amount of terrorist funds have been
frozen worldwide, operatives have been arrested in countries which
never before had made concerted efforts and many terrorists have been
forced into hiding.
And, within 26 days of 9/11, the Bush administration moved a massive
number of troops into position, pulled over 40 nations into a
coalition, negotiated extraordinary concessions from Pakistani
President Pervez Musharef, including flyover and basing rights,
planned humanitarian efforts to avoid human catastrophe and commenced
the air war to remove al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan. All
within 26 days of 9/11.
BACKGROUND ON IRAQ, WMD AND THE U.N.
A little background is necessary to understand the decision to topple
Saddam. Immediately after the first Gulf War, the United Nations
imposed heavy sanctions against Saddam's regime. These sanctions were
devastating and, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam was on the
verge of losing power. Iraqis were on the cusp of revolt against the
dictator responsible for their misery.
But, in 1996, Europe came to the rescue by offering the vaunted "Oil
for Food" program. Bill Clinton succumbed to enormous European
pressure and, against everyone's better judgment, agreed to the
program. This gave Saddam new life, allowing him to provide for his
citizens and illegally siphon off billions to rebuild his regime and
his grip on Iraq.
All the while, Saddam thumbed his nose at more than a dozen years of
U.N. Security Council resolutions, he bugged the phones and rooms of
weapons inspectors, he forbade weapons inspectors to privately
interview scientists, he had armed "minders" escort the inspectors
24/7 and he blocked the U.N. from entering dozens of sites they wished
to inspect. He had also kicked the inspectors out multiple times
before finally in 1998, after the inspectors located Saddam's stash of
deadly VX, the U.N. was kicked out for good. And, from 1998 to 2002,
the U.N. inspectors were never allowed to return.
So, the last thing we knew, the inspectors had found the deadliest
chemical to date, VX, and had not been able to destroy the stockpile
before being escorted out of the country. Meanwhile, Saddam was busy
bribing France, Russia and China (each of which are able to single
handedly veto any Security Council resolution) to keep the U.N out and
fight for the end of all sanctions against his regime.
By September of 2001, all attempts to renegotiate U.N. re-entry had
failed and there was a major push by, you guessed it, France, Russia
and China to lift ALL sanctions against the non-compliant Saddam. The
Duelfer report stated that, if sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would
have been in a position to restart his WMD programs and certainly
would have done so.
THE DECISION TO TOPPLE SADDAM
A lot has been made that the ONLY reason Bush gave for his invasion of
Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. Although this was a big part of
the reason, it most certainly was not the only reason. There are two
factors you need to understand in order to fully appreciate Bush's
rationale.
First, whether you agree with it or not, President Bush set out a
policy to topple the Taliban, work with countries willing to help on
the war on terror, freeze terrorists' assets and replace regimes that
continue to support terrorism. In his stirring State of the Union
speech, he identified the top culprits, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Secondly, you might find it interesting to reread Bush's speech in
Cincinnati which outlined the Iraqi threat. This was THE speech
justifying the invasion of Iraq. Many on the left would have you
believe that the only justification President Bush gave was WMD.
That's why it is so important that you reread the transcript. This
speech is so long that I will not excerpt it in earnest here, but here
is the link to the speech. You would be well served to reread it.
WMD was indeed a large part of the speech, but you have to remember
that the last time inspectors were allowed in Iraq, they had just
located deadly VX and had not had the opportunity to destroy the
stockpiles. Additionally, the CIA, Britain, Russia and Jordan all said
that intelligence confirmed that Saddam still had WMD stockpiles and
the programs to create more. The intelligence was overwhelming.
But when you reread the Cincinnati speech, you will see that
possession of WMD was not the only reason Bush gave for invasion of
Iraq.
Saddam used chemical weapons against his own citizens and in his war
against Iran.
Saddam launched unprovoked wars against both Iran and Kuwait in a
diabolical effort to dominate the Middle East.
Saddam possessed ballistic missiles which were banned by the U.N. and
which we subsequently DID find.
Saddam was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Although the president does
not name him by name, he clearly states that "Some al Qaeda leaders
who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al
Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and
who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological
attacks." This could only be a reference to Zarqawi.
Saddam harbored world-renowned terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal.
Saddam's regime gleefully celebrated the 9/11 attacks on our country.
Saddam was scamming the U.N. mandated Oil for Food program and
side-stepping sanctions.
In 2002 alone, the Iraqi military had fired on American and British
pilots enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone over 750 times.
"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives
and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a
method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to
watch their own children being tortured."
Saddam continued to fund terrorists organizations and even rewarded
the families of Palestinian homicide bombers by sending each family
$25,000 for their son or daughter's act of terrorism.
In order to fully appreciate the Iraq rationale, you have to remember
that Bush, after 9/11, had put the world on notice that the United
States was no longer going to look the other way while regimes
continued to fund, harbor and assist terrorists and their
organizations. Saddam continued to do all three. He was a loose cannon
ready to explode as soon as France, Russia and China could manage to
get U.N. sanctions dropped.
What President Bush understands, that neither Senator Kerry nor the
loony left seems to, is the same thing President Kennedy understood in
October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world
community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive
threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live
in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a
sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum
peril."
SO WHY NOT IRAN OR NORTH KOREA?
Unlike Saddam Hussein and Iraq,
Neither Iran nor North Korea had a 12 year track record of ignoring
and defying U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Neither Iran nor North Korea had, in recent history, invaded their
neighbors for regional domination.
Neither Iran nor North Korea had a history of utilizing chemical
weapons.
Leaders of Iran and North Korea have a vital interest in
self-preservation (Saddam wants to become an historical icon).
The world is currently involved in negotiations with both Iran and
North Korea.
Invading Iran with madman Saddam next door would have been entirely
too unpredictable.
Invading Iran, visually on a world map, would have made it look like
America was on the march right across the Middle East. From
Afghanistan to Iran... Where next, Iraq? It would have appeared to be
a crusade.
PART II - THE INVASION
| |
|
|
|
|
"Pattywak" <one2345@eml.cc> wrote in message
news:bf78d922.0410270558.eaebbac@posting.google.com...
quote:
> Just ask yourself one question and consider it seriously:
> Why are we in Iraq?
Very simple really..........
It put us on the ground in a place/region where we have never had this
type of oppertunity before. We can now walk into Syria, and Iran
(literally !) without asking another countries premission. We now have an
area in the ME where we can base out of, and work out of in at
least the near future. It also does indeed keep the US itself safer due
to the fact that many many terrorists now (and have been) are heading
there rather than trying to strike US assets elsewhere.
The USA historically has tried to fight it's battles elsewhere and not in
country...
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
|
| |
|
|